In one “Tweet” limited by a 140 character rule, President Trump took note of North Korea’s character and current posture, expressed his righteous indignation that North Korea’s behavior is unchanged from their abysmal behavior of years, and wraps it all up on with a bright red bow declaring that China is playing a game here because “China has done little to help”. The exclamation point after breaking China is a rain of glitter on a brilliant gem of a tweet.

If brevity is the soul of wit surely President Trump’s tweets are the apex of rhetorical power.

President Trump managed in 140 characters to flex his muscles and declare what to others requires mountains of books to express.

We stand together in facing what was once a regional security challenge, but today North Korea threatens not only its regional neighbors, but the United States and other countries. Efforts toward North Korea to achieve peaceful stability over the last two decades have failed to make us safer. The U.S. and our allies have repeatedly reassured North Korea’s leaders that we seek only peace, stability, and economic prosperity for Northeast Asia. As proof of our intent, America has provided $1.3 billion in assistance to North Korea since 1995. In return, North Korea has detonated nuclear weapons, and dramatically increased its launches of ballistic missiles to threaten America and our allies.

The U.S. commitment to our allies is unwavering. In the face of North Korea’s grave and escalating global threat, it is important for me to consult with our friends, and chart a path that secures the peace. Let me be very clear: the policy of strategic patience has ended. We are exploring a new range of diplomatic, security, and economic measures. All options are on the table. North Korea must understand that the only path to a secure, economically-prosperous future is to abandon its development of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other weapons of mass destruction.

We call on other regional powers and all nations to join us in demanding the North Korean Government choose a better path and a different future for its people. The United States is committed to supporting the defense of our allies, and we will continue to develop a comprehensive set of capabilities to counter the growing North Korean ballistic missile threat.

That is why the United States and the Republic of Korea decided to take the defensive measure of deploying THAAD Missile Defense System. While we acknowledge China’s opposition, its economic retaliation against South Korea is inappropriate and troubling. We ask China to refrain from such action. Instead, we urge China to address the threat that makes that necessary, that being the escalating threat from North Korea.

Lockheed Martin said Thursday it has finished a 60-kilowatt laser system for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and is preparing to hand it over to the Army for further testing. In initial tests, the company achieved 58 kilowatts of power but expects its laser to reach its full potential by the time of its delivery in the next few months.

The laser is what the company calls a “combined fiber” laser beam, bringing together individual lasers to form a single, stronger beam. Lockheed has been testing it at an installation in Bothell, Wash., and plans to ship it to an Army installation in Huntsville, Ala., in the next few months.

“We’re really at the dawn of an era of the utility of laser weapons,” said Robert Afzal, senior fellow for laser and sensor systems at Lockheed Martin. The Army’s specialized military vehicles “can now carry something which is small enough and powerful enough for what we believe will be militarily useful.”

Proponents say lasers could be cheaper than traditional munitions systems because they don’t require expensive projectiles and they don’t need to be reloaded. That could make the system useful in taking down airborne adversaries, such as off-the-shelf drones.

The idea of an off-the-shelf drone fleet commanded by a non-state entity presents new challenges for a global military establishment that has focused for centuries on war with other governments. For example, Gen. David Perkins said this week that a U.S. ally had taken down an adversary’s off-the-shelf quad-copter — which can be purchased online for a few hundred dollars — with a multimillion-dollar Patriot missile.

Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said: “That’s $3 million to shoot down a three-or-four-hundred-dollar drone. . . . What if you could do that with a beam of light that costs a buck?” [snip]

Lasers “hit targets at the speed of light, they cost almost nothing per shot, and they have an almost unlimited number of times they can be used,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the nonprofit Lexington Institute, which receives funding from defense firms including Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Terrorist creeps that use improvised explosive devices that cost a few dollars are an economic problem because the United States has to spend millions or at least thousands to counter their cheap improvisations. That might now change. A couple of cheap zaps from a laser makes killing the creeps economically doable. Drone, schmone, future wars are on their way and the U.S. is getting ready.

Hey, we have an idea. Get the gamers from high school and the pajama boys in their basements to zap zap the creeps in a video game that really kills. Talk about Enders Game, huh? Not our Enders Game, the other Enders Game.

The Navy already has a ship with lasers. Now the Army can have a 60-kilowatt laser that can be carried about and repeatedly used for a few dollars more.

President Trump pressed German Chancellor Angela Merkel “hard” on NATO dues during the leaders’ Oval Office meeting on Friday, Fox News is told – a point the president underscored during their joint press conference minutes later.

“Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years, and it is very unfair to the United States,” Trump said at the press conference, discussing the need for NATO allies to pay “their fair share” for defense. “These nations must pay what they owe.”

He then thanked Merkel, who was standing beside him, for Germany’s apparent commitment to increase defense spending and work toward contributing 2 percent of GDP to NATO.

According to a source with direct knowledge of the meeting, the comments came after Trump privately pressed Merkel during their discussion to increase NATO spending. While NATO already has asked members to invest 2 percent of their GDP, Germany has fallen under that line. [snip]

During the 2016 campaign, Trump accused her of “ruining” Germany by allowing an influx of refugees from Syria.

“You watch what happens to Angela Merkel, who I always thought of as a very good leader until she did this. I don’t know what went wrong with her,” said then-candidate Trump at an August rally in Virginia.

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department formally appealed a Maryland judge’s decision this week that blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order barring U.S. entry for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

The appeal on Friday kicks off a new phase in litigation over whether Mr. Trump’s latest travel restrictions improperly target people based on their religion. The president says the restrictions are necessary to protect the country from terrorism.

Judges in Hawaii and Maryland, in rulings issued only hours apart this week, said Mr. Trump appeared to have been motivated by improper religious animus. [snip]

The government’s appeal came in a short written notice filed in court. The case will now go to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which didn’t immediately embrace a quick timeline for reviewing the matter. The court asked the government to file its opening legal brief by April 26, and said it would then give the challengers a month to respond.

The Maryland case involves a challenge by refugee organizations and others, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request to comment.

The government hasn’t yet filed appeals papers in the Hawaii case, though it is expected to do so at some point.

Early April, Gorsuch will be on the Supreme Court. The 4th Circuit will not take this case seriously, the Supreme Court will and we expect a decision soon after Gorsuch is on the high court.

An overlooked interview of Maria Zakharova with Russia’s 1 TV Channel, Russia’s Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, on a national Russian TV show has brought insight into the frustration Russia encountered in dealing with the Obama administration over the years. Zakharova suggested President Barack Obama will go down in history as one of America’s evilest presidents.

In the program, Zakharova explains that Russia was warned countless times in 2015 during diplomatic talks that if they were to go into Syria to fight “terrorists,” their work would be undone by the media, which would label them the aggressor. This has clearly has been the case for the past year-and-a-half.

“[T]he media was one thing,” Zakharova noted. “The U.S. State Department and the White House, from the mouths of their official representatives, directly threatened to cause us pain.”

Filtering more than just water, Brita has partnered with the Cybersmile Foundation to filter out negativity on the Internet.

Zakharova continued:

“Then, official Foreign Affairs representatives began to call upon their people to come out and protest in front of Russian embassies.”

This is likely a reference to British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s calls for anti-war protesters to target Russia.

“That which began in October 2015 – ended with the murder of our Ambassador in December 2016.”

“I’ll remind you of one more thing – we’ve talked about this – let’s remember the real attacks. Not those campaigns with plastic arms and legs in London, or posters in front of our embassies in the E.U., but the shelling of the Russian Embassy in Damascus,” Zakharova also noted.

She then vented her frustrations regarding the instances when Vitaly Churkin (another diplomat who died mysteriously last month) questioned attacks committed by NATO-backed rebels in Syria at the U.N. According to Zakharova, the same diplomats who promised that Russia would feel pain for intervening in Syria were the same people blocking statements condemning these attacks, hindering progress on the issue. In doing so, Zakharova was unable to confirm if she was referring specifically to former secretary of state John Kerry, though this appears to be the implication of her allegations.

Asked about Obama’s failure to offer condolences for the death of Russia’s ambassador in Turkey in December 2016, Zakharova responded:

“Obama, I think, is a unique person…But Obama is a person, and I mean, the whole administration under him, whose team — as it worked out on the international arena — was bad for everyone. I think during his 8-year term, under the pretext of their “exclusivity,” they became the subject of disgust for the entire world. That is my impression.”

She continued:

“They did not deliver on any responsibilities they had to other nations, nor did they deliver on what the American people entrusted to them, on the international arena. This is an obvious thing.”

Zakharova didn’t hold back in her repeated criticism of the Obama administration.

“And the main thing – of course, I am not a lawyer or a human rights activist – but from a moral point of view they have committed crimes,” she added, apparently disregarding numerous allegations against Russia’s complicity in war crimes of their own. “They showed us that the strongest military has unlimited rights to create evil.”

Nevertheless, Zakharova concluded:

“This is what’s going to go down in history for this administration. Let me say it again – they demonstrated that the strongest has the right to create evil.”

The presidential election also impacted Ford’s decision to move, surprisingly so. Unlike those celebrities who vowed in its lead-up to leave the country if Donald Trump won, Ford found an opposite pull. “Oddly, it made me want to come back even more,” he notes. “We have a tremendous number of people in this country who feel disenfranchised and clearly we are not relating to or speaking to them. I am at my core American, and it made me want to come back. It didn’t make me want to run away.

“I think when you sense that there is a divide in your country and that there are people who perhaps you’re not relating to, and that those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a world of very liberal human rights and privilege, it’s a wake-up call that we’re not addressing a big part of the country that does feel disenfranchised. It made me feel more nationalistic, if anything. The whole country is not like New York and L.A. and the world that I am used to living in.”

This from the guy who said he would not design for Melania (even as he wasn’t asked)?

Jurists trade charges and counter-charges over ruling that kept block on executive order.

President Donald Trump’s travel ban has triggered an unusually caustic public spat among the judges of the federal appeals court that first took up the issue.

The disagreement began to play out publicly Wednesday when five 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges publicly recorded their disagreement with a decision three of their colleagues issued last month refusing to allow Trump to reinstate the first version of his travel ban executive order.

The fight escalated dramatically on Friday with the five Republican-appointed judges filing another withering attack on the earlier opinion and two liberal judges accusing their conservative colleagues of trying to make an end-run around the traditional judicial process.

In the new opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski blasted the earlier ruling for essentially ignoring the fact that most of those affected by Trump’s initial travel ban have no constitutional rights.

“This St. Bernard is being wagged by a flea on its tail,” Kozinski wrote, joined by Judges Carlos Bea, Jay Bybee, Sandra Ikuta and Consuelo Callahan. [snip]

“My colleagues err by failing to vacate this hasty opinion. The panel’s unnecessary statements on this subject will shape litigation near and far. We’ll quest aimlessly for true intentions across a sea of insults and hyperbole. It will be (as it were) a huge, total disaster,” Kozinski said, in an an apparent tip of the hat to Trump’s bombast.

That didn’t sit well with Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who accused his colleagues of trying to affect the ongoing litigation over Trump’s redrafted executive order.

“Judge Kozinski’s diatribe, filed today, confirms that a small group of judges, having failed in their effort to undo this court’s decision with respect to President Trump’s first Executive Order, now seek on their own, under the guise of a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing of an order of voluntary dismissal, to decide the constitutionality of a second Executive Order that is not before this court,” wrote Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter. “That is hardly the way the judiciary functions. Peculiar indeed!”

Another liberal 9th Circuit judge, Marsha Berzon, weighed in Friday with a more restrained rejection of her colleagues’ efforts to undermine the earlier ruling.

“Judges are empowered to decide issues properly before them, not to express their personal views on legal questions no one has asked them. There is no appeal currently before us, and so no stay motion pending that appeal currently before us either,” wrote Berzon, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “All the merits commentary in the dissents filed by a small minority of the judges of this court is entirely out of place.”

“My dissenting colleagues should not be engaging in a one-sided attack on a decision by a duly constituted panel of this court,” Berzon added. “We will have this discussion, or one like it. But not now.”

Kozinski responded by accusing his liberal colleagues of trying to silence the court’s public debate on the issue.

“My colleagues’ effort to muzzle criticism of an egregiously wrong panel opinion betrays their insecurity about the opinion’s legal analysis,” wrote Kozinski, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.

After delays and hours of discussions amid tensions over ‘trade’ comments between the United States and the rest of The G-20, it appears President Trump has ‘won’. While China was “adamantly against” protectionism, the finance ministers end talks without renewing their long-standing commitment to free trade and rejection of protectionism after US opposition.

The fight escalated dramatically on Friday with the five Republican-appointed judges filing another withering attack on the earlier opinion and two liberal judges accusing their conservative colleagues of trying to make an end-run around the traditional judicial process.
———
Oh . . . . .

I get it . . .

The left wing ideologues

Masquerading as Judges

Who were perfectly willing

To make an END RUN as they call it

Around the Constitution, Congress and the American People

Object most strenuously

When five of their colleagues

Have the temerity to make an end run around them

Why are those stark enthusiasts for open borders so upset?

They are, after all, judges–in title if not in substance, and

Surely they realize as judges that reasonable minds can differ

The problem as I see it is they know their own minds are unreasonable

And they hoped to project the image of a blue wall with no cracks in it

We shall see what happens to the Dow Jones Industrial Average on Monday.
—-

As we noted earlier, needless to say, such an acrimonous end to the weekend’s summit would likely result in a surge in FX volatility when markets open for trading late on Sunday, reflecting the new state of global trade flux, in which the future of the US Dollar is completely unknown, and reflecting the emerging chaos over the future parameters of trade.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration wants to build a 30-foot-high border wall that looks good from the north side and is difficult to climb or cut through, according to a pair of contract notices posted to a government website further detailing President Donald Trump’s promise to build a “big, beautiful wall” at the Mexican border.

The notices were made public late Friday by Customs and Border Protection, the Homeland Security Department agency that will oversee the project and eventually patrol and maintain the wall. The proposals are due to the government by March 29.

One of the CBP contract requests calls for a solid concrete wall, while the other asks for proposals for a see-through structure. Both require the wall to sunk at least six feet into the ground and include 25- and 50-foot automated gates for pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed wall must also be built in a such a way that it would take at least an hour to cut through it with a “sledgehammer, car jack, pick axe, chisel, battery operated impact tools, battery operated cutting tools, Oxy/acetylene torch or other similar hand-held tools.”

The government will award a contract based on 30-foot-wide sample walls that are to be built in San Diego.

This is the second time the Trump administration has asked for private companies to bid on building the wall. Last month CPB put out a call for “concept papers” to design and build prototypes by March 10.

Trump has bragged in recent days that the wall is ahead of schedule, though it’s unclear from the latest contract notices if any firms have submitted wall proposals or if any such submissions have been rejected.

The government has not said where the wall will be built, though the contract notices suggest some pieces of a new wall could replace existing fencing that stretches over about 700 miles of the roughly 2,000-mile border. The current fencing of mixed construction, including 15-foot steel posts set inches apart that are designed to keep people from crossing and shorter posts that are intended to block cars. Border Patrol agents are constantly repairing holes in the structure.

Trump has long promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, which he has said is necessary to stop the flow of immigrants crossing the border illegally and drug smugglers.

This week the president sent a budget proposal to Congress that included a $2.6 billion down payment for the wall. The total cost for the project is unclear, but the Government Accountability Office estimates it would cost about $6.5 million a mile for fence to keep pedestrians from crossing the border and about $1.8 million a mile for a vehicle barrier.

Congressional Republicans have said Trump’s wall would cost between $12 billion and $15 billion and Trump has suggested $12 billion.

An internal report prepared for Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly estimated the cost of building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border at about $21 billion, according to a U.S. government official who is involved in border issues. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been made public.

That report proposed an initial phase that would extend fences 26 miles and a second wave that would add 151 miles, plus 272 “replacement” miles where fences are already installed, according to the official. Those two phases would cost $5 billion.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans have a lot to say about their new president.

Donald Trump’s proposed budget is “draconian, careless and counterproductive.” The health care plan is a bailout that won’t pass. And his administration’s suggestion that former President Barack Obama used London’s spy agency for surveillance is simply “inexplicable.”

With friends like these, who needs Democrats?

Less than two months in, Republicans have emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to Trump’s young administration, imperiling his early efforts to pass his agenda and make good on some of his biggest campaign promises.

President Trump holds the trump cards. President Trump will beat them like rented mules.

admin
March 18, 2017 at 4:00 pm
Another brick in the Wall:
———
I hope it’s fully electrocuted and has computer controlled turrets. A few corpses littered along the southern side would be a great deterrent.

Did RINOcare Just Become a Lot Less RINO?
3:00PM EDT 3/17/2017 BOB ESCHLIMAN

Something happened Friday at the White House that is almost unprecedented in modern-day American politics.

Just what that something was, we’re not entirely sure just yet.

But, somehow, President Donald Trump put his legendary negotiating skills to work and convinced a number of conservative House Republicans to switch from “no” to “yes” votes on replacing the Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—with a revised version of the American Health Care Act—which had earned the nickname RINOcare (Repeal In Name Only) shortly after it was unveiled. What revisions were made isn’t clear at this point, and will likely be fleshed out in greater detail over the weekend.

Here’s what we do know: Friday morning, the president met with members of the conservative Republican Study Committee for about 20 minutes. After that meeting, the congressmen emerged and announced they would all be voting yes on the health care legislation.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was the first to speak with the media after the closed-door meeting concluded:

“We appreciate President Trump having us into the Oval Office to talk about healthcare and the improvements that are being made. The president has worked and said, “Bring us your best ideas.” And there are members of the Republican Study Committee who have brought those good ideas and worked in a very diligent way to ultimately get to a ‘yes’ on this bill with changes that the president has asked us to make that we’re going to make in the bill.”

Scalise then turned to Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), who said:

We’re excited about today because it’s historic, knowing that we’re getting a couple of very important things to the steering committee members—work requirements through the country, and also something that we call “block grants,” which allow the states to be empowered. We believe they should be able to hold the reins when it comes to managing their population. We also think this would provide more coverage for the indigent, for those sick and for those disabled.

So we’re excited about it today, and that’s why we’ve come today to celebrate the American Health Care Act and moving forward with a ‘yes.’

Making Medicaid a block grant program was already part of the plan for the AHCA, so Walker’s comments were a little bit confusing. We do know that Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Administrator Seema Verma, who was just confirmed midweek, has already contacted a number of legislators about how she intends to work with the states to help them modernize their Medicaid programs to provide more care at a lower cost, like she did in Indiana and other states.

Trump closed out the press availability with some remarks, but they didn’t shed much more light on what changes are in store for the legislation, other than that he had been working the phones overnight and into the day Friday to convince conservatives and centrist Republicans to support the legislation. He said:

I just want to say that these are folks that were either a ‘no’ or a ‘maybe.’ And we had a nice meeting, and we’ve been talking all during the night. This didn’t just happen over the last 20 minutes. This has been going all night long.

And we are doing some incredible things. I want everyone to know I’m 100 percent behind this. I want everybody to know that the press has not been speaking properly about how great this is going to be. They have not been giving it a fair chance. The press is—as you know, I call it the ‘fake news.’ This is going to be great for people. I watch—I say, that’s not the bill we’re passing. And I also want everybody to know that all of these “nos,” or potential “nos,” are all “yeses.” Every single person sitting in this room is now a “yes.”

And we made certain changes, and, frankly, little—although the block grant is very important, because I want the states to get the money and to run their program, if they want to run it, because they can do it better than the federal government. They’re better-equipped than the federal government.

They also want people to know that Obamacare is dead; it’s a dead health care plan. It’s not even a health care plan, frankly. And I watched the architect of the plan—yesterday I watched the old clip where he said the American people are stupid to have voted for it. I watched Bill Clinton saying, this is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. And only because everyone knows it’s on its last dying feet, the fake news is trying to say good things about it—the fake media. And there is no good news about Obamacare. Obamacare is dead. And unless we gave it massive subsidies in a year from now or six months from now, it’s not even going to be here. So when they say, ‘Oh, more people on the plan,’ there’s not going to be any people on the plan.

I was in Tennessee—I was just telling the folks—and half of the state has no insurance company, and the other half is going to lose the insurance company. The people don’t know what to do. It’s a disaster. Obamacare is dead. Nothing to do with these people. Nothing to do with me. It’s on a respirator and it’s just about ready to implode.

Now, we could wait for six months or a year and let it happen. It’s not the right thing to do for the people. This is a great plan. This is going to be fantastic. You’re going to have bidding at the one level by insurance companies. And remember this—remember this: Those lines are going to come out, you’re going to have bidding by insurance companies like you’ve never seen before. Plans are going to come out like nobody has ever seen before. Plans that nobody has even thought of now are going to be devised by insurance companies to take care of people.

And we’re going to take care of people at all levels. So I just want to let the world know: I am 100 percent in favor. These folks—and they are tough, and they love their constituents, and they love this country—these folks were “nos”—mostly “nos”—yesterday. And now every single one is a “yes.” And I just want to thank you. We’re going to have a healthcare plan that’s going to be second to none. It’s going to be great. And the people will see that.

And, by the way, it will take a little while—because before it all kicks in and welds together, it takes a little while. With Obamacare it got worse and worse. Premiums went up 116 percent. They went up 58 percent. The governor of Minnesota said that Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—is no longer affordable. That’s what he said. The Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable. And he’s the guy that—he’s a good Democrat, he wanted Obamacare. He said it’s no longer affordable. Obamacare is not an alternative. It’s not there. It’s dead. It’s dead.

So I just want to say thank you very much. I really appreciate it. One hundred percent of the “nos” are “yeses.” And some of them were strong “nos.” Some were just “nos.” And we have a couple that were mixed. But I just want to thank you folks. And we’re going to have a great, great, health care plan.

Shortly after the meeting dismissed, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) announced he would be bringing the legislation to the House floor for a vote Thursday next week, meaning he’s confident he has the 218 votes necessary to get it passed. The Senate will then be able to take up the bill, since it is being handled through the budget reconciliation process.

FEMINISM & ZIONISM: DEFINITIONS AND EXCLUSIONSMayim responds to a recent series of articles suggesting that feminism and Zionism are incompatible

A recent series of articles about Palestinian-American political activist Linda Sarsour startled many in feminist and Jewish circles, me being one of them. In these articles, Sarsour states that feminism and Zionism are incompatible.

Sarsour said, “There is no country in this world that is immune to violating human rights. You can’t be a feminist in the United States and stand up for the rights of the American woman and then say that you don’t want to stand up for the rights of Palestinian women in Palestine.” (Check out this interview with Sarsour in The Nation.)

I don’t know that I am even the authority to speak to this on an international level, but here’s what I have on a personal level. Feelings.

Why am I upset?

Definitions

Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jewish people to have an autonomous state in Israel. I am a Zionist. Feminism is the belief that a woman-driven movement can bring about race, class and gender equality and that women deserve all of the rights and privileges afforded to men. I am a feminist. There are Zionists who are critical of certain Israeli policies and those who are not; there are Zionists who are anti-occupation and there are Zionists who are pro-settlement; and there are Zionists who fall between these extremes. The definitions of Zionism and feminism are not in conflict with each other. At all.

Exclusionary Status

Are there things that happen in Israel and the Palestinian territories which cause pain and suffering to women? Absolutely. And being a Zionist doesn’t mean a definitional indifference to this suffering, especially of Palestinian women and children. The question is this: Many countries – many Muslim countries, in fact – perpetrate atrocities against women which include: female genital mutilation, forced marriages, child brides, systematic abuse of women by the justice system, revenge rape and honor killing. Why is Israel held to a standard none of these other countries – whose offenses are, arguably more extreme – are held to? And why is belief in the State of Israel something that should exclude women – or men, for that matter – from identifying as feminists?

Bigotry

Accusing Zionism of being incompatible with feminism is exceptionally short-sighted. It smarts of a broad-stroke bias against the entire Jewish people for the violations that occur in a state that was founded on the principles of Zionism. That’s not good. Bad things happen when we paint with such a broad brush. It’s bigotry.

Divisiveness

Ultimately, for a feminist activist – or any activist – to place the blame for policies made by a few people on the entire entity of Zionism and all who are committed to the idea of a Jewish state is irresponsible. It’s disgusting, it’s insulting, and it’s wrong. It creates fragmentation in a movement that needs cohesion, needs to stand together for equality, domestically and internationally.

As a feminist Zionist, I can’t believe I am being asked to choose or even defend my religious, historical and cultural identity. The “left” needs to reexamine the microscope they use to look at Israel, and we all need to take a step back and remember we are stronger together: women, men, lovers of peace, and lovers of freedom and justice.

Keep on with your delusions girlfriend. The “left” hates you because you are Jewish. Keep thinking you are protected because you are a leftist, but when push comes to shove, you are a Jew and for that the left hates you and seeks your destruction. Get a clue.

When Jagger learned to dance: He saw James Brown perform before the Stones at the T.A.M.I. show. Jagger knew they were in trouble because Brown brought the house down. Jagger started to imitate Brown and began to dance. It was a Chuck Berry song, “around and around”.

Kellyann’s husband, a Filipino American, is now under serious consideration to head the Justice Department’s civil division.

Originally there was speculation that George Conway might be nominated to be Solicitor General. As an attorney, he has represented the National Football League, Philip Morris, and Paula Jones in her sexual harassment case against President Bill Clinton.

He is no Alberto Gonzales. He has excellent credentials. And would do a good job.

I saw James Brown in Austin, and my daughter saw him at Memphis in May, which, of you have never been there, is a great music festival with numerous big name bands at half the price of something like ACL festival here in Austin.
I almost saw him in his prime, but had to work late, of course, and my partner in crime fell asleep. I should have gone by myself, Austin in the early 80’s was a great place to be young, with very little crime.
Those days are gone, still a fun place to be young, but so over populated and extremely expensive. It was so laid back and had so many music venues. Most are gone, the great ones anyway.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

the election in 2008 of Barack Obama marked a watershed, when a traditionally liberal media abandoned prior pretenses of objectivity and actively promoted the candidacy and presidency of their preferred candidate. The media practically pronounced him god, the smartest man ever to enter the presidency, and capable of creating electric sensations down the legs of reporters. The supposedly hard-hitting press corps asked Obama questions such as, “During these first 100 days, what has …enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most…?”

Obama, as the first African-American president—along with his progressive politics that were to the left of traditional Democratic policies, enraptured reporters who felt disinterested coverage might endanger what otherwise was a rare and perhaps not-to-be-repeated moment.

We are now in a media arena where there are no rules. The New York Times is no longer any more credible than talk radio; CNN—whose reporters have compared Trump to Hitler and gleefully joked about his plane crashing—should be no more believed than a blogger’s website. Buzzfeed has become like the National Inquirer.

In this context, the new president stands to gain much at little cost, at least for now, by treating the media as the nemesis it is:

Trump now communicates, often raucously and unfiltered, directly with the American people, to ensure his message is not distorted and massaged by reporters who have a history of doing just that. Unfortunately, it is up to the American people now to audit their own president’s assertions.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT JUST THAT THE MEDIA IS OFTEN NOT RELIABLE, BUT THAT IT IS PREDICTABLY UNRELIABLE.

IT HAS CEASED TO EXIST AS AN AUDITOR OF GOVERNMENT.

IRONICALLY, THE MEDIA THAT SACRIFICED ITS REPUTATION TO GLORIFY OBAMA AND TO DEMONIZE TRUMP

Given that base’s close proximity to Camp Lemonnier, China’s intentions are obvious.

They want what the United States has, which is a vast overseas empire, and an expeditionary force that can reach any coastline in the world. They want to compete with our current role in the global theater. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough room in the world for two countries carrying out that role. We may very well be witnessing the first stages of a new conflict between the United States and China.

dovetails with below…must be some very nervous people now that PDT is not backing down…and fighting back…

Are there any honest people left on Capitol Hill or will all participate in the ‘cover up’…ok Lindsey…you say you want to get to the bottom of this mess…start with the whistleblower who is already on video with Comey…

History will record that once upon a time there was something that called itself #TheResistance, and it was President Trump’s bestest buddy because it provided him the cover to ruthlessly dismantle everything Barack Obama and Team Libfascist tried to build. Whining, virtue signaling, and figuratively choosing to die on strategically insignificant hills while dressed like lady parts; these were its methods. Yet instead of defeating him, it only made Donald Trump stronger, and helped ensure his crushing of its members’ liberal dreams.

Outlining the need for Europe to reaffirm itself in the face of major powers like Russia, China and the U.S., Macron insisted that he would “serve France’s interests firsts” to ensure it kept its strategic autonomy and was able to act alone at any moment if needed.

Admin: I beleive you have mentioned this Mensch creature before. If that is correct then this may interest you.
——–
N.Y. TIMES LENDS OPINION PAGE TO STRANGE CONSPIRACY THEORIST

Glenn Greenwald has said that “many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies,” notably “a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence.” Among these media figures and/or online charlatans are Rachel Maddow, Alex Mohajer, and Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress.

I would add another name — Louise Mensch, journalist, digital media executive at the News Corporation, and former member of UK Parliament. Alex Pfeiffer of the Daily Caller describes some of Mensch’s pet conspiracy theories. According to Pfeiffer, she has written that “Breitbart and Russia are 100% linked;” that Jeff Sessions is a “Russian partisan;” and that the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted online was actually a Russian hacking ring.

Taking the alleged Breitbart-Russia connection one absurd step further, Mensch has tweeted: “I absolutely believe that Andrew Breitbart was murdered by Putin. . .” (Greenwald responded “absolutely.” Given his contempt for theories less egregious than this one, I imagine Greenwald was having a laugh).

Mensch, then, would seem like a strange candidate for a place on the opinion section of the New York Times. But there she is, with a column called “What to ask about Russian Hacking.” That’s how committed the Times is to the anti-Trump “resistance.” No one is too loony or too opportunistic for the Times to turn down if he or she can advance the unsubstantiated Trump-Russia collusion story.

Mensch’s piece consists mainly of questions she would like the House Intelligence to pose to various individuals. These are typical:

[For Jeff Sessions] To your knowledge, did you break the law during the campaign? If so, how? To your knowledge, did anyone else related to the Trump campaign break the law during the campaign?

And:

[For Carter Page] Stephen Miller, then a campaign spokesman, stated that Jeff Sessions was putting together the foreign policy team. How were you recruited to that team? What contact did you have with its head, Mr. Sessions?

As far as I know, neither Sessions nor Page is on the Committee’s witness list. The same is true for others Mensch has drafted questions for. Her lengthy witness wishlist includes Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Anton. It’s a wonder Steve Hayward didn’t make the list.

Were any of the people for whom Mensch has drafted questions to testify, many of her questions could be handled with one of two responses: “No” or “Who gives a sh*t?”

Near the end of her romp on the Times opinion page, Mensch tell us: “Never in American history has a president been suspected of collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.” She may be right as to past presidents, but her statement assumes that the suspicion of Trump is reasonable.

If so, it would have been reasonable to suspect that President Obama collaborated with Russia during his election campaign. We know that Obama told the Russian president that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. A conspiracy theorist might ask: What did Russia agree to do to aid Obama’s campaign in exchange for this promise of flexibility?

I don’t consider Obama’s statement evidence of collusion. But there is at least as much reason to view it as such as there is to suspect that Russia’s hacking of certain Democrats’ emails was the product of collusion with the Trump campaign.

It’s telling that the New York Times had to reach down to Louise Mensch to maintain the Trump-Russia collusion drumbeat. It publishes her piece at a time when Mike Morell and James Clapper are saying there’s no evidence of collusion, and congressional Democrats tamping down the expectations of their left-wing base.

It’s equally telling that the Times would reach down to a inveterate conspiracy theorist like Mensch.

Mensch stench Wobbei. She is very dishonest (as exposed by Wikileaks disclosure that Mensch was writing campaign ads for Podesta). She is dangerously corrupt (Mensch wrote the election eve attacks on Trump being owned by Russians).

Fortunately, she is nuts and the Obama Dimocrats who believed her will pay the price for their stupidity.

After Creating Chaos For Brand Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Steps Down – Preparing For 2020 White House Bid?…
Posted by sundance
According to a report in the Seattle Times, Howard Schultz, the current CEO of Starbucks, will step down from his role at the coffee chain next month. This comes following the collapsing brand image as a direct result of Schultz’s political virtue signaling to hire 10,000 refugees and avoid hiring Americans.

The refugee announcement followed the first President Trump temporary travel-ban and many Trump supporters boycotted the coffee chain. In a letter to employees Schultz claimed the promise of the American Dream was ‘being called into question’ and ‘the civility and human rights we have all taken for granted for so long are under attack.’

However, with the successful installment of Tom Perez as head of the DNC – the timing and political transparency indicate Howard Schultz could also be positioning himself for a 2020 White House run.

Schultz has long been a favorite candidate for the professional political donor class within the DNC and was a top-tier contender for Clinton’s VP in 2016. The DNC will always position the winning candidate as one they are able to control.

Conservative MP Louise Mensch has admitted that taking Class A drugs left her with “long-term mental health” problems.
Ms Mensch, 41, one of David Cameron’s most recognisable young MPs, revealed that drugs caused her to suffer bouts of anxiety. “It is something that I regret incredibly, that in my youth that I messed with my brain,” she said (snippet)

Near the end of her romp on the Times opinion page, Mensch tell us: “Never in American history has a president been suspected of collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.”
————–
Never in American history has the press been so utterly lacking in honesty.

Russia (Putin) is about to start an investigation of western (US and UK) “journalists” publishing what they consider libel. NYT, WaPo, CNN, BBC, Evening Standard, The Times, etc are about to get kicked out of Moscow. And the Russians will not be so very polite to Mensch. They will bring up her brain damage, money problems, addictions, and inability to read maps. She also craves attention for some reason which the Russians are going to give her but not in a good way. Poor dumb Louise.

Nearly half of Canadians want to deport people who are illegally crossing into Canada from the United States, and a similar number disapprove of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is handling the influx, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday.

A significant minority, four out of 10 respondents, said the border crossers could make Canada “less safe,” underlining the potential political risk for Trudeau’s Liberal government.

The increasing flow of hundreds of asylum-seekers of African and Middle Eastern origin from the United States in recent months has become a contentious issue in Canada.

There has been broad bipartisan support for high levels of legal immigration for decades in Canada. But Trudeau has come under pressure over the flow of the illegal migrants. He is questioned about it every time he appears in parliament, from opponents on the left, who want more asylum-seekers to be allowed in, and critics on the right, who say the migrants pose a potential security risk.

Canadians appeared to be just as concerned about illegal immigration as their American neighbors, according to the poll, which was conducted between March 8-9. Some 48 percent of Canadians said they supported “increasing the deportation of people living in Canada illegally.”

The numbers against illegal immigration are probably higher because as in the U.S. it is taboo to express political opinions contrary to Big Media dictates.

Gorsuch taught a class a few years ago, and in it he raised a hypothetical on whether a company could ask about pregnancy plans of a prospective employee, despite FMLA. One employee thought this was clear evidence of a vile sexist white male pig, and another disagreed. This being an academic environment, if he said it at all it was probably a devils advocate position to promote an exchange of views, which is the kind of academic freedom that is now under attack across the nation. If there is nothing in his public record as an appellate court judge to confirm this viewpoint, fair minded people would see this for what it is. That view finds corroboration in the letters of support he received from 11 female law clerks who worked with him. But for this ninny that was not enough. This is something that needs to be investigated to the ends of the earth, and the mere allegation alone is enough for the rabidly anti white male democrat to vote him down.